Monday, February 05, 2007


I guess I can understand both sides of the debate over a Springfield City Council resolution calling for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq. A resolution that may or may not even come before the whole council for a vote.

When I say I can see both sides, I mean that while I agree with the sentiment of the resolution and would vote for it myself if I were on the City Council, I can see the argument that it’s perhaps a little out of the council’s jurisdiction, if you will. I don’t agree with that last part, but I can certainly see how someone could make that argument.

What I can’t see is arguments like this:
[Ward 1 alderman Frank] Edwards, who often says that he votes based on the will
of his constituents, said he won't do so this time because the issue "really doesn't have an impact on the ward."
Really? Ward 1 is exempt from federal taxes that have been used to fund the hundreds of billions of dollars war? No one in Ward 1 who volunteers for the military will ever be sent to Iraq? The residents of Ward 1 aren’t represented by the government of the United States that launched this foolish war?

Hmmmm, I think the Iraq war does have an impact on every American, even those in Ward 1.


The Abstract Prosaic's crushed soul said...

I think what Ald. Edwards means is that the resolution is totally meaningless and a complete waste of the council's time.

This resolution and five bucks will get you a caffeinated beverage at Starbucks.

Marie said...

It's some kind of trend among municipalities. I used to be in Ward 1, but they mapped me out.

JeromeProphet said...

Of course it's non-binding. But is it meaningless?

The Declaration of Independance wasn't worth the paper it was written on until our forefathers made it worthy through their rebellious actions.

Symbolism has always played an important role in politics, and so I wouldn't call it meaningless.